University of Wisconsin President Ray Cross on Tuesday asked the Legislature's budget-writing committee to approve a new public authority for the UW System, a "dedicated and stable funding stream" and to reduce the governor's proposed $300 million budget cut over the next two years.

Shortly after he finished his testimony, a handful of protesters burst into the room shouting, "No cuts, no deals." Followed by four Capitol police officers, the protesters marched past the table where Cross was sitting to give testimony before the Joint Committee on Finance.

If Park Bank is liable for not spotting Sujata "Sue" Sachdeva's $34 million embezzlement from Koss Corp. and has to reimburse the company, Koss Chief Executive Michael Koss should also be ordered to personally pay the public company he runs, the bank argues in a new lawsuit.

Grant Thornton, Koss Corp.'s former auditor, should also have to pay a portion of any award that may be ordered, Park Bank argued in the latest twist in a long-running court fight stemming from Sachdeva's massive embezzlement.

"Park Bank denies any and all liability to Koss in this case," the bank said in its action. "Nevertheless, should Park Bank be found liable to Koss (Corp.) and required to pay damages to Koss, in this case, those damages will have been the result of a common liability of Park Bank, Michael Koss and Grant Thornton, thereby entitling Park Bank to (a) contribution from Michael Koss and Grant Thornton."(3)

In a case that bears directly on Wisconsin’s new system of public financing for state Supreme Court elections, the nation’s highest court heard arguments Monday in a challenge to an Arizona law.

The issue before the court is not public financing itself, but whether it’s constitutional to give publicly financed candidates additional “matching” public funds when their privately financed opponents outspend them.

A lawyer for opponents to Arizona’s public financing system told the U.S. Supreme Court Monday that it violates the free speech rights of candidates and independent groups when “each time they speak … the more their opponents benefit.”

Defenders of the law argue that it produces more political speech, not less. They say public financing is a way to reduce corruption, and the law is written the way it is in order to make public financing a realistic option for candidates.

But members of the court’s conservative majority expressed skepticism about that defense Monday. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive swing vote on court decisions, said during oral arguments that he was tempted to believe that the Arizona law discourages spending by independent groups because of the knowledge that the more they spend against a publicly financed candidate, the more public funds that candidate will receive.

The case has a direct bearing on state Supreme Court campaigns in Wisconsin. The current race between Justice David Prosser and Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg is the first to use a public financing system adopted for state Supreme Court races in 2009. Their contest will be decided a week from Tuesday.

The Wisconsin law offers public grants to court candidates in place of private contributions. By accepting, a candidate limits his or her own spending. But the law also offers additional funds to those candidates when a privately financed opponent or independent group outspends them.

Such “triggers” are at the core of the debate in the Arizona case.

The trigger provision in the Wisconsin law has not come into play this year. One reason is that both Prosser and Kloppenburg accepted public financing. And the other is that independent groups have structured their spending in a way that doesn’t trigger the additional matching grants. Instead of running independent expenditures in the race, which explicitly call for the election or defeat of a candidate, interest groups have aired so-called “issue ads,” which carry a less explicit election message.

The first type of ad trips the trigger in the law, but the second type of ad doesn’t.

The Wisconsin law is also under court challenge, but the outcome of the Arizona case is expected to determine its legal status as well.

About Craig Gilbert

Craig Gilbert is the Journal Sentinel's Washington Bureau Chief and writes the Wisconsin Voter blog about politics and elections.